Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. When we left off last week, Emil Bove was scouring the Justice Department halls for a warm body to sign his motion to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. One of the prosecutors who refused said he thought the acting deputy attorney general would eventually find someone foolish or cowardly enough to do his dirty work. As it turned out, Bove signed it himself, and the former Trump defense lawyer appeared alone this week on behalf of the United States for a historically strange hearing in New York.
A “somewhat unusual situation” is how U.S. District Judge Dale Ho understatedly assessed it. The oddness stemmed partly from the fact that it wasn’t an adversarial proceeding. That is, Bove and Adams want the case dismissed “without prejudice,” which would just so happen to give the Republican administration the option of reviving it later. Nonetheless, Bove and Adams reiterated at Wednesday’s hearing that it’s definitely not a quid pro quo, even though the Trump DOJ wants to trade a temporary case dismissal (quid) for (pro) political cooperation (quo). But whether by coincidence or totally on purpose, such a dismissal would give the White House political leverage over the Democratic mayor on matters of immigration enforcement and who knows what else.
Faced with this farce, Judge Ho made an interesting move. Rather than rubber-stamp the deal or reject it outright, the Biden appointee brought in a third party to explore legal issues that neither side raised (because they’re basically on the same side). And the judge didn’t just pick any old lawyer. He chose Paul Clement, a conservative with impeccable credentials, who will give Ho his learned opinion before the judge decides whether to grant the dismissal without prejudice. In an order Friday, Ho explained his thinking in noting that defendants often contest such dismissals. Now it’ll be Clement filling that role, with briefs on a spate of legal questions Ho laid out in his order due March 7, with possible oral argument on March 14.
The bottom line is that no decision has been made in the Adams affair, and it will be at least a couple more weeks before that is resolved.
Elsewhere in the DOJ’s banner week, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Trump loyalist and 2020 election denier Kash Patel to lead the FBI. He’s not to be confused with Trump loyalist and 2020 election denier Pam Bondi — our recently confirmed attorney general — or Trump loyalist and 2020 election denier Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Trump said this week that he wants Martin to lead the office full time, after an interim stint marked by railing against the office’s Jan. 6 prosecutions, posting letters pledging allegiance to Elon Musk on the billionaire’s social media platform, and threatening various investigations against Democrats.
Speaking of ham-fisted investigations, yet another prosecutor resigned this week rather than carry out what she described as orders from Trump-appointed officials to take actions unsupported by the evidence. DOJ veteran Denise Cheung was asked to review documentation from Bove’s office “to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency” during the Biden administration. While the details behind this latest apparent scandal are a little murky, the picture of the Trump DOJ becomes clearer as a tool for punishing political opponents and rewarding allies.
And in the rash of Trump 2.0 civil litigation still unfolding, contempt was on the table this week in a case over the government’s foreign aid freeze. Trump officials escaped a civil contempt finding sought by plaintiffs who claimed brazen defiance of U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s temporary restraining order. In their contempt motion, the plaintiffs cited (among other things) Trump’s recent statement on social media that “he who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Judge Ali stopped short of contempt, but the Biden appointee reiterated the government’s duty to obey his order, as litigation continues alongside broader questions of the administration’s compliance with court orders in this case and others — and, perhaps more importantly, how judges respond to those questions.
Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
